--Sc::...sL-- Ds- D \- \'
(l~~"2.- \1-0 tab)
SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
Freetown - Sierra Leone
Before:
Justice Teresa Doherty, Presiding
Justice Richard Lussick
Justice Julia Sebutinde
Justice El Hadji Malick Sow, Alternate Judge
Acting Registrar:
Mr. Herman von Hebel
Date filed:
12 May 2008
THE PROSECUTOR
Charles Ghankay Taylor
Against
Case No. SCSL-03-01-PT
PUBLIC
PROSECUTION CORRIGENDUM TO URGENT PROSECUTION ApPLICATION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORAL DECISION REGARDING PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR
WITNESS TFl-215 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ApPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ApPEAL
ORAL DECISION REGARDING PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR WITNESS TFl-215
Office of the Prosecutor:
Ms. Brenda J. Hollis
Ms. Kirsten Keith
Defence Counsel for Charles Ghankay Taylor
Mr. Courtenay Griffiths
Mr. Terry Munyard
Mr. Andrew Cayley
Mr. Morris Anyah
I. INTRODUCTION
1.
On 9 May 2008, the Prosecution filed "Urgent Prosecution Application For
Reconsideration of Oral Decision Regarding Protective Measures For Witness
TFI-215 or in the alternative Application for Leave to Appeal Oral Decision
Regarding Protective Measures For Witness TFI-215.'"
2.
The Prosecution files this corrigendum to correct portions of the Application
relating to the number of Group I witnesses covered by the RUF Decision dated 5
July 2004.
3.
The Prosecution also seeks leave to substitute corrected pages for those pages of the
PTe Materials which are the subject of the corrigendum. The corrected pages are
set out in the attached four annexes.
II. CORRIGENDUM
4.
The Prosecution corrects the Application as follows, with changes highlighted by
bold underscore and errors indicated by bold strikethrough:
Paragraph 15 reads:
The RUF Decision, read in conjunction with prior Prosecution filings upon which
the RUF Decision is based, show that TFI-215 was included within the protections
granted, as were all U6 witnesses of fact listed in the 26 April 2004 witness list.
Paragraph 15 should read:
The RUF Decision, read in conjunction with prior Prosecution filings upon which
the RUF Decision is based, show that TFI-215 was included within the protections
granted, as were all 259 2 Group I witnesses i.e: witnesses of fact, listed in the 26
April 2004 witness list
1 Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-501,"Public with Confidential Annexes Band E - Urgent
Prosecution Application For Reconsideration of Oral Decision Regarding Protective Measures For Witness
TII-215 or in the alternative Application for Leave to Appeal Oral Decision Regarding Protective
Measures For Witness TFl-215", 8 May 2008 (Application")
l 266 witnesses in total were listed in the Witness List filed on 26 April 2004. Annex B of the Renewed
Motion lists 7 experts witnesses, leaving a total of 259 fact witnesses.
Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T
2
Paragraph 17, sentence at lines 3-4 reads:
All fact witnesses refer to the U}6 witnesses in the 26 April list.
Paragraph 17, sentence at lines 3 -4 should read:
All fact witnesses refer~ to the 259 witnesses in the 26 April list who are not listed
as experts in Annex B of the Renewed Motion.
Paragraph 19, sentence at lines 9 -11 reads:
The paragraph was included to indicate that, although the basic protective measures
were being requested for all 266 faet witnesses, it was anticipated that not all 266
would testify.
Paragragh 19, sentence at lines 9 -11 should read:
The paragraph was included to indicate that, although the basic protective measures
were being requested for all 266 witnesses, it was anticipated that not all 266 would
testify.
Paragraph 21 reads
The language and intent of paragraphs 2, 3 5 and 20 make clear that the basic incourt protections sought for fact witnesses - the use of pseudonym and screen related to all U}6 fact witnesses.
Paragraph 21 should read:
The language and intent of paragraphs 2, 3 5 and 20 make clear that the basic incourt protections sought for fact witnesses - the use of pseudonym and screen related to all 259 fact witnesses in Group I.
Paragraph 22. sentence at line 6 reads:
Thus, Trial Chamber I concluded that the Renewed Motion included all
witnesses.
Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T
3
U}6
fact
Paragraph 22, sentence at line 6, should read
Thus, Trial Chamber I concluded that the Renewed Motion included all 259 fact
witnesses:
Paragraph 23, sentence at line 1-3, reads:
That the RUF Decision granted basic in-court protections to all
Ui(t
fact witnesses
listed in the 26 April list, including TF 1-215, is clear in light of the implementation
of that decision by both Trial Chambers during the testimonies of fact witnesses in
the RUF and AFRC cases.
Paragraph 23, sentence at line 1-3, should read:
That the RUF Decision granted basic in-court protections to all 259 fact witnesses
listed in the 26 April list, including TF 1-215, is clear in light of the implementation
of that decision by both Trial Chambers during the testimonies of fact witnesses in
the RUF and AFRC cases.
IV. CONCLUSION
5)
The Prosecution respectfully requests that this corrigendum be considered
conjunction with it's Application.
Filed in the Hague,
12 May 2008
For the Prosecution,
Brenda J. Hollis
Senior Trial Attorney
Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T
4
III
List of Authorities
Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T
Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-501,"Public with Confidential Annexes Band EUrgent Prosecution Application For Reconsideration of Oral Decision Regarding
Protective Measures For Witness TF 1-215 or in the alternative Application for Leave to
Appeal Oral Decision Regarding Protective Measures For Witness TF 1-215", 8 May
2008
Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T
5